Attachment 18_SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD.pdf

SECTION M, Evaluation Criteria For Award

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD.

M.1.0 Introduction.

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the MACC contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against predetermined measures of merit related to the Government's requirement defined herein.

M.2.0 Basis for Contract Award.

a. This is a No Price Technically Acceptable (NPTA) source selection, with technical acceptability, for 8(a) companies within the Mid-Atlantic Region that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at, https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against the source selection criteria in this solicitation. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Contract(s) may only be awarded to the Offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR 9.104-1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the U.S. Government.

c. For the purposes of this evaluation, the proposal must be technically acceptable with acceptable past performance in order to be considered for award. The technical proposal is not subject to trade-offs and is not subject to technical merits in the award process. To be considered for award, each proposal will be evaluated by a Government representative with the assistance of the Contracting Officer. No price will be evaluated at the base IDIQ level, price competition will occur at the Task Order (TO) level.

M.3.0. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

a. The Government intends to award to all qualified Offerors. A qualifying Offeror is one that is technically “Acceptable” with “Acceptable” past performance.

b. Upon the decision of the SSA, contracts will be awarded to all qualifying Offerors. Award will consist of a one (1) year base contract and six (6) option years.

M.4.0. Evaluation Process.

M.4.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M.4.1.1. The Government reserves the right to not award if the SSA determines it is in the Government's best interests. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Management Plan Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan Subfactor 3: Performance Execution Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

M.4.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors.

The Technical Factor and Past Performance will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. All Subfactors within Technical are of equal importance and will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

M.4.2. Evaluation Steps.

The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. Proposals will be evaluated using the following evaluation process steps:

Step 1 – Proposal Adequacy: The Government will review proposals for completeness (adhering to all information/instructions). If an Offeror fails to comply with instructions in the Instructions to Offerors (ITO), the Offeror’s proposal may be deemed incomplete and will receive no further consideration and be eliminated from the competition. The Government will only evaluate proposals deemed complete.

Step 2 - Factor 1, Technical: The Government will evaluate all complete proposals for technical acceptability. A rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned for each subfactor.

All subfactors must be deemed “Acceptable” for Factor 1 to be deemed “Acceptable”. To be eligible for award, an Offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating for Factor 1. Only proposals determined “Acceptable” on Factor 1 will proceed to be evaluated for Factor 2. Proposals determined “Unacceptable” for Factor 1 will receive no further consideration.

Step 3 - Factor 2, Past Performance: The Government will evaluate all technically “Acceptable” Offeror’s past performance submissions. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance that meet the RFP’s requirements. IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2), the government will consider recency, relevance, and quality of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. These are combined to establish one performance rating for each Offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). Each past performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each recent past performance submission will receive a relevancy rating. Next, each recent and relevant past performance submission will receive a quality rating. As a result of recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the individual contracts evaluated an overall Past Performancerating will be assigned to the Past Performance Factor. Any proposals receiving an “Unacceptable” rating for Factor 2 will receive no further consideration.

M.4.3. Discussions.

a. The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary and or in the best interest of the Government IAW FAR 15.306(a)(3). If applicable, even if no discussions are held, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of its proposal or comment on adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. If the Government decides to open discussions they may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of discussions, and response time to any evaluation notices, are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. With the approval of the SSA, the Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). At the conclusion of discussions, each Offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. Responses to discussion items and final proposal revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the award decision. Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as to technical, past performance, and all terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the Offeror and the Government at the conclusion of discussions, if held. Material changes to proposals submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

b. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for offer revision.

c. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their offer (for example: the relevance of past/present performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

M.5.0. Evaluation Factors.

M.5.1. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s technical proposal, based on the subfactors listed below, to determine if the Offeror’s technical proposal demonstrates a sound approach and a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the MACC SOW requirements and solicitation.

All Subfactors within Technical are of equal importance and will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” Basis, as defined in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Technical Assessment Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Note: All subfactors must receive an Acceptable rating for Factor 1, Technical to be deemed Acceptable. An offer with an Unacceptable rating in one or more subfactors will be given an overall rating of Unacceptable for Factor 1 - Technical and will not be eligible for award.

M.5.1.1. Technical Subfactor 1: Management Plan. To be determined acceptable, a proposal must describe an effective approach of how the Offeror will manage their personnel and potential subcontractors/teaming partners to minimize technical, cost, and schedule risks to execute projects within the minimum requirements of the MACC SOW given the need to simultaneously manage requirements from design through construction to completion for the locations specified in SOW Section 1.0 under short, time critical deadlines. (Section L, paragraph L.3.2.1)

Offerors shall provide an organization chart (graph) that shows the lines of authority and communication for the execution of this contract and clearly identifying management, design and engineering/construction partnerships the lines of authority of the Offeror’s Project Manager, Quality Control and Safety Organization, as key positions, including all Joint Venture (JV) Partners, teaming partners, and Key Subcontractors, when applicable in the organization.

The chart shall identify all offices involved in this contract from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the Offeror’s site office(s), and how they are related. All positions shall be identified on the organization chart by title, organization, physical location, and whether the positions are filled by the prime contractor or a subcontractor, and in the case of a Joint Venture, which JV partner.

The minimum levels identified should be descriptive of the position and not a specific individual. The Project Manager, or the on-site person that communicates with the U.S.

Government if the PM is not on-site, and any other personnel authorized to communicate directly with the U.S. Government shall be clearly identified.

Offerors shall provide a narrative description of the organization structure including roles, major responsibilities, and authorities of all Joint Venture Partners, Key Subcontractors, teaming partners, and key personnel. The position titles used in the narrative and Subfactor II shall match those used in the organization chart.

M.5.1.2. Technical Subfactor 2, Staffing Plan:

a. The proposed Staffing Plan shall demonstrate the Offeror can rapidly (within 14 business days from notification of award) obtain additional subcontractor support (if applicable) and augment existing in-house and key personnel to effectively execute and manage multi-discipline task orders (maintaining high quality workmanship and minimizing cost, schedule and technical risks) in a highly compressed time frame while also executing a 20-30% surge workload during the 3rd Quarter of the fiscal year (FY21 through end of the contract).

b. The proposed Management Plan shall clearly address the (1) appropriate number of key personnel, (2) shall demonstrate key personnel meet the required minimum certifications, education and experience (IAW MACC SOW paragraphs 2.17, 19, 20, and 22) and (3) have the commensurate authority required to effectively manage the Basic IDIQ and provide oversight of the Project Manager(s), Construction Manager(s) and the remaining workforce in the execution of task orders for JBA and JBAB. The plan shall also include a realistic recruitment and retention approach that ensures an experienced workforce (including all levels of management – Program Manager, Project Manager(s), Construction Manager(s) and Quality Control Manager), with the required experience and authority are recruited, hired, trained and retained over the life of the contract and shall describe an adequate process to maintain currency of required certification and/or specialized training (Section L, paragraph L.3.2.1 (2)(a) and L.3.2.1(2)(b)).

c. The Staffing Plan demonstrate a realistic approach to properly staff, recruit, retain, and replace experienced workforce, and adequate process to maintain currency of required certification and/or specialized training to perform the entire range of tasks in the SOW.

The Offeror shall describe the hiring criteria for the key positions depicted on the organizational chart to include the minimum level of education, professional licenses, technical certifications, experience and/or background, etc. that shall be required to hold the position described. The Offeror shall complete and submit the key personnel skills matrix with their proposal for all positions/skillsets identified in Section L 3.2.2.

M.5.1.3. Technical Subfactor 3, Performance Execution Plan:

a. The Performance Execution plan shall demonstrate an effective strategy and methodology for ensuring the offeror can bid on, accept, and execute multiple (3 or more) task orders simultaneously at JBA and JBAB sites while maintaining the ability to meet short term critical dates.

M.5.2. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE.

Past Performance will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Past Performance shall be rated on Recency, Relevancy, and Quality and deemed either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Using offeror provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires (Attachment 15 to the RFP), and other means, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on (1) the past and present effort provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other U.S. Government sources, if necessary.

The U.S. Government will determine and assign a past performance rating IAW the chart below.

Table 2. Past Performance Assessment

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, "unknown" shall be considered "acceptable."

The Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly identifies and supports recency, relevancy, and quality based on the following definitions:

5.2.1. Recency.

Rating Definition Acceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort or the offeror's performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing (at least 50% complete) or must have been completed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that is not recent will not be evaluated.

5.2.2 Relevancy.

The U.S. Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained regarding past performance for the purposes of assigning a rating of Relevant or Not Relevant for each contract reference. Projects will be determined relevant if the requirement is a repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance or minor construction effort on real property with a magnitude of at least $100K and involves two or more trades.

5.2.3. Quality Assessment.

The US government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of past performance questionnaires, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs), and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) information, interviews with government customers and, if applicable, commercial clients. The above will be looked at for positive or neutral responses as well as completeness of the information. While a separate quality rating will not be assigned, the Government will be taking Quality into consideration when determining an Offeror’s Past Performance to be Acceptable or Unacceptable.

M.6.0. Responsibility Determination.

Additional elements to be eligible for award are elements of evaluation in the source selection that relate to proposed terms and conditions, results of pre-award surveys and other reviews.

Since they are not directly tied to the specific evaluation areas, these additional elements do not receive a color/adjectival rating, proposal risk assessment or performance confidence assessment.

The following conditions shall be met in order to be eligible for award:

a. Determination of Offerors responsibility in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1.

b. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the work requirements of the contract and may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. The government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies with an Offeror’s proposal. The proposal must comply with requirements of law, regulation, and all conditions set forth in the solicitation.

c. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

d. A Pre-Award Survey (PAS) may be conducted as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M7.0 Non-Government Advisor.

This requirement uses a Non-Government Advisor. The Advisor listed below will assist in and provide input regarding the evaluation but may not determine ratings or ranking of Offeror’s proposals. The Non-Government Advisor will not be permitted access to an Offeror’s past performance information. As required by DoD Source Selection Procedures, Section 1.4.6.2, the Non-Government Advisor shall complete a Non-Disclosure Agreement specific to this acquisition to be retained within the contract file. Completion of blocks 20A-C of the RFP, SF 1442 constitutes Offeror’s acceptance of the following:

Non-Government Advisor’s review of an Offeror’s proposal within the limitations listed above:

Anita Brown, Contractor Contract Specialist U.S. Federal Solutions, Inc.

8710 Cameron St.

Silver Springs, MD 20910 Telephone: 240-612-5673 anita.brown4.ctr@mail.mil